Fossil raindrop impressions imply greenhouse gases loaded early Earth's atmosphere

Mar 28, 2012
A meerkat perches atop rocks bearing the fossil impressions of raindrops that fell in South Africa 2.7 billion years ago. Credit: Wlady Altermann/University of Pretoria

In ancient Earth history, the sun burned as much as 30 percent dimmer than it does now. Theoretically that should have encased the planet in ice, but there is geologic evidence for rivers and ocean sediments between 2 billion and 4 billion years ago.

Scientists have speculated that temperatures warm enough to maintain were the result of a much thicker atmosphere, high concentrations of greenhouse gases or a combination of the two.

Now University of Washington researchers, using evidence from fossilized raindrop impressions from 2.7 billion years ago to deduce at the time, have demonstrated that an abundance of greenhouse gases most likely caused the .

Their work, which has implications for the search for , is published March 28 in Nature.

"Because the sun was so much fainter back then, if the atmosphere was the same as it is today the should have been frozen," said lead author Sanjoy Som, a postdoctoral researcher at NASA's Ames Research Center, Mountain View, Calif., who conducted the research as part of his UW doctoral work in Earth and space sciences.

He and his coauthors – David Catling and Roger Buick of UW Earth and space sciences; Jelte Harnmeijer, a UW graduate now at the Edinburgh Centre for Low Carbon Innovation in Scotland; and Peter Polivka, a UW graduate student in civil engineering – set out to determine how the ancient atmosphere differed from that of today.

Knowing the atmospheric pressure of a given period can help scientists understand in better detail the overall nature of the atmosphere at that time. For example, substantially higher pressure would be needed for a phenomenon called "pressure broadening," which allows existing greenhouse gases to absorb more radiation and warm the planet. That has been speculated as a reason for the warmer conditions on ancient Earth.

But precise measurements of atmospheric pressure date only from the invention of the barometer in 1644. The new work allowed the scientists to determine limits of ancient air pressure by comparing raindrop impressions from today with the fossilized impressions from a time when there were no plants or animals on Earth but the planet was teeming with microbes.

The sizes of raindrop impressions depend on raindrop velocity, the atmospheric pressure and the composition of material into which the raindrops fall. Previous research has shown that at Earth's surface raindrops won't exceed a little more than a one-quarter inch in diameter. That also is the largest a raindrop could have been to create the largest fossilized impressions, regardless of the atmospheric pressure.

Those large raindrops in today's atmosphere fall at about 30 feet per second, but if the ancient atmosphere was thicker that speed would have been lower and the maximum size of imprints left behind would be smaller.

Buick and Harnmeijer poured latex over the raindrop impressions in fossilized volcanic ash found in South Africa, then returned the latex peels to Seattle, where high-precision laser scanning produced detailed measurements.

Meanwhile, to get a measure of raindrop impressions under present-day atmospheric pressure, Som and Polivka used a pipette to release varying sizes of water drops down an open stairwell into recent volcanic ash collected from Hawaii and Iceland, held in a tray nearly 90 feet below. The ash was of similar composition to the rock in which the fossilized raindrop imprints were found. The scientists used liquid plastic and hair spray to harden the impressions, which then were scanned with lasers and the scans compared to the impressions from South Africa.

In comparing the raindrop impressions, Som determined that, if the biggest imprints were formed by the largest raindrops, the atmospheric pressure 2.7 billion years ago could have been no more than twice what it is today. But the largest possible raindrops are extremely rare, he said, so it is very likely that the pressure was the same, or even lower, than it is today. That would favor a buildup of in the atmosphere to explain a warmer Earth, rather than the effect of pressure broadening.

Som, who earned a master's degree in aeronautics and astronautics before switching his emphasis to Earth and space sciences in the UW's astrobiology program, said the finding could prove important in the search for life on planets orbiting other stars, called exoplanets. That's because the Earth of 2.7 billion years ago was very different from what we know today, and yet it too supported abundant life in the form of microbes.

"Setting limits on atmospheric pressure is the first step towards understanding what the atmospheric composition was then. Knowing this will double the known data points that we have for comparison to exoplanets that might support life," he said.

"Today's Earth and the are like two different planets," he said.

Explore further: NASA sees developing Tropical Storm Halong causing warning

Related Stories

Snowball Earth hypothesis challenged

Oct 12, 2011

The hypothesis that the Earth was completely covered in ice 635 million years ago has received a serious blow. The atmospheric concentration of CO2 during that period was much lower than previously thought, ...

Early Earth may have been prone to deep freezes: study

Dec 05, 2011

Two University of Colorado Boulder researchers who have adapted a three-dimensional, general circulation model of Earth's climate to a time some 2.8 billion years ago when the sun was significantly fainter than present think ...

Climate change and the rise of atmospheric oxygen

Mar 23, 2006

Today's climate change pales in comparison with what happened as Earth gave birth to its oxygen-containing atmosphere billions of years ago. By analyzing clues contained in rocks, scientists at the Carnegie Institution's ...

Venus: Earth’s twin planet?

Nov 29, 2007

ESA’s Venus Express has revealed Venus as never before. For the first time, scientists are able to investigate from the top of its atmosphere, down nearly to the surface. They have shown it to be a planet ...

Recommended for you

Huge waves measured for first time in Arctic Ocean

11 hours ago

As the climate warms and sea ice retreats, the North is changing. An ice-covered expanse now has a season of increasingly open water which is predicted to extend across the whole Arctic Ocean before the middle ...

New research reveals Pele is powerful, even in the sky

17 hours ago

One might assume that a tropical storm moving through volcanic smog (vog) would sweep up the tainted air and march on, unchanged. However, a recent study from atmospheric scientists at the University of Hawai'i ...

Image: Wildfires continue near Yellowknife, Canada

18 hours ago

The wildfires that have been plaguing the Northern Territories in Canada and have sent smoke drifting down to the Great Lakes in the U.S. continue on. NASA's Aqua satellite collected this natural-color image ...

User comments : 4

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Mar 28, 2012
This is so speculative, it's ridiculous. There's not even a way to determine if the pitted stone was originally pitted by rain. It could have been created by any number of processes.

http://en.wikiped...troversy

Even the "Snowball Earth" hypothesis is controversial:

http://en.wikiped..._dispute
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
not rated yet Mar 29, 2012
Neat result!

@ ubavontuba: Thanks for the references! Though "Snowball Earth" wasn't mentioned, only radiation balance (greenhouse effects).

My personal take: The critique against raindrop impression is general and doesn't say whether any or all is accepted, only "some controversy" and a meager set of refs.

It is hard for an outsider to know the consensus. So what one can do is to follow the reception of the paper. If it remains valid, besides being published in such a notable peer-reviewed journal, it is a good constraint as the researchers point out. We need more of those.
deatopmg
not rated yet Mar 29, 2012
I've seen calculations of 250 bar over 4 B-yrs ago based on the known present loss of atmospheric gases into space. (It's interesting that calculations for Mars give a similar atmospheric pressure shortly after formation.)

What did Som et al get from their calcs for 2.7 B-yrs ago?? It's not mentioned here (as a rouse to get those interested to purchase the article from Nature?).
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (1) Mar 29, 2012
So if it wasn't atmospheric pressure, what greenhouse gasses are we talking about and in which concentrations?